Historically speaking, what he's describing sounds an awful lot like the militia, specifically the 'select militia' as the term was used prior to the advent of full time, professional police forces. Or perhaps also the sheriff's posse. See Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms.Halfapint wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:47 amAren't these people called "cops"?? Maybe more like "The Andy Griffith Show" or something is what they are thinking but I agree with everything else you said about power over the community.Stercutus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:09 amNot everyone should have access to guns — domestic abusers, for example, have proven by their actions that they cannot be trusted with that kind of responsibility — and not everyone needs it. No one without a significant amount of training should be handling a firearm at all, which is why I think designated community patrols made up of well-trained, highly trusted individuals who are chosen by and held accountable to said community (and who do not hold any or less power than anyone else due to their position) is a far better and more equitable defense model than messy “everyone gets a gun!” rhetoric.
In the modern context, yes, that would best describe the police, who are hired by the police chief, who reports to the mayor and/or city council, all of whom are elected. Or sheriff's deputies, who report to the sheriff, who is elected.
Now, the problem with the (select) militia, in the English context, is when called out, it was quite often to disarm opponents of the Crown. Which is what tends to happen which such "People's Patrols/Militia/Police" (or whatever you choose to call them) as the author is describing - they end up going after anyone viewed as an opponent of "the People" when The People takes over as the Crown.